Angolobabe:

Chei , i see sey dis settlement stuff dey pain u die ,for your information i am a first class working woman and i am my own boss ,so yes i use my brain and hands to make that happen .

The thing is authomatically weither he wants it or not his entiled to it anyway and vice versa so its my right and his.

So dont try to take away your partners right just cos u want to keep everything to urself even if u worked for it.

Well we can all work the law. A law that encourages laziness, All a man needs to do is to marry an upwardly mobile girl, after a while he turns to a bum and sit at home all day doing nothing, Hopes the girl gets frustrated and divorce him while he walks away with half of her worth.

What a law that encourages and rewards laziness

...

chaircover:

Lets not make divorce look like a walk in the park especially when children are involved. Mrs Tiger Woods in spite of her 100 million or whatever her settlement was, will in her bedroom out of sight of everyone will still have regrets about what happened. . . . and so will Mr Woods himself.

Forget about the money for a sec. Many women would rather live a happy and peaceful but not so rich life with the man they love and he truly loves them, rather than having heaps of money in the bank but be sad and empty & lonely in the marriage.

True talk.

But most mature/older women have given up on (or are highly cynical about) love and settle for compatibility or as I like to term it "as good as it lasts" relationships/marriage. Their dream of love has died a long time ago (mainly due to their own erroneous choices in men and/or erroneous behaviours [love testing] that ruined good relationships in their youth) and their criteria is now de-stringent-nised (new word).

In reality, it is impossible for men to satisfy the needs of most women. Women don't themselves know what they want and even if a guy works gaddam hard and figures it out, it is a transient phenomena, it will change soon and require another set of labouring to figure out. That gets better as they get older though, their "want/needs" becomes less liquid and more tangible.

chaircover:

I don't know why you guys are making it look as if the average woman deliberately homes in on a rich man to marry just so that she can run off with half his assets a few years down the line.

Absolutely not.

The average woman is looking for a guy that is great company, comfortable financially (not necessarily wealthy) and knows how to make her feel special. Normally they will do almost anything to prove their love for such a guy.

But if divorce ever comes and they are out of love or are angry (which are most likely the case), that is not what she would be looking for. She would be looking out for herself only or trying to get revenge. It is not her fault, it is her biological programming. Women will do virtually anything for you when they are in love, but most times you are below their shyt if they are no more in love and it was not amicable.

On the other hand, there are women (not the average) that marry men because of their wealth and financial success, women who are only emotionally capable of falling in love only if the guy has money. Those ones’ plans are to live a rich and ostentatious "everyone, see my fancy life" lifestyle, and at the back of their mind have a PLAN B of "at least if it does not work out, I will work hard to leave with half". They are not the average woman, but they are significant and even most of the average women have this trait hibernating somewhere deep down and can come out if they do not find love or love has repeatedly disappointed them.

chaircover:

. . . . . Besides how come these rich but obviously silly men get conned by these women?

Let me go through a few that comes to me head immediately.

1) Unlike women, most men are not used to be being approached/chased/cherished, so it is quite easy for it to get to their head when extremely beautiful women like jennykandri start fussing over him and telling him that they are all that and are the one. It massages his ego and he is amazed about the calibre of woman that he quickly falls in "luf". Don't forget, biologically, men are built to fall in love with beauty. No be dem fault, na biology.

2) Secondly, in most cultures, we are raised to see women as not only the weaker sex, but the fairer sex. Women are by default seen as kind, considerate, selfless and accommodating until they do anything to detroy this. It does not help that we are mostly raised by mothers who likely demonstrated this to their offsprings. Basically, we are raised to think women are to be trusted. Most guys fall for this.

I say think again. Think why women themselves don't get along with each other and hardly trust each other.

3) Thirdly, most men, including the rich, think it is Honourable and Mensch not to request a prenup, and you have to be completely and senselessly trusting when tying the knot.

Real world: 50% of marriages fail. Considering the severity of the consequential loss to a man, I would rather be sensible than honourable.

4) The fourth and most critical is that most men assume women are logical. They think when things collapse, women will be logical. Personally, "I pity the foooool". Because a woman is logical today and straightforward does not mean she would be tomorrow or when kasala busts.

chaircover:

Could it be that the men themselves were looking for the wrong type of qualities such as looking for beauty, figure etc rather than character & compatibility? Whose fault is it then if the character overshadows the beauty after the novelty has worn off?

Just a little food for thought.

As I said earlier, men are biologically built to fall for looks.

Women mainly use two tools to attract a partner: Looks and Personality.

Reality is that men like both but looks carry more of the weight in the first half of the journey (including the period that they get married). The fact is that personality is not what gets the Mojo standing high like the magnificent Eiffel Tower. When you are young, virile and with hormones running everywhere making you Hot like a Mongolian Bull on premium Crystal Meth, looks do count. Again, it is biology, baby. Then when looks fades and you have spent a long time knowing someone, only the personality can sustain the second half.

That said, marrying a fugly does not guarantee you that she will not milk you. Even women with character and compatibility are not necessarily logical when there is a law telling them that they are "entitled" to 50%. It is their "right".

For example, most women arguing here for the “right” to milk are most likely of good character but yet are programmed to think they are "entitled" just because they have a marriage "contract" or it is the “law”.  The brainwash of the lame law beats any logic. As women, as long as it is to their favour/benefit, it is not that bad. Remember the thing I said about “logic” and “women”?

So why would you think it is more beneficial to suffer with fugly to only end up with the same results?

Na wa for this kind blatantly illogical female solidarity. . .still going round and round in circles without making any new, meaningful point. ONLY on one condition does a woman deserve compulsory divorce settlement: that she played a direct role in helping her husband acquire his fortune! Any other talk about giving him her best years (as if he too did not give her his), or taking care of his children (as if they aren't hers too) blah blah blah is absolute nonsense. There's NO WAY that justifies her walking away with HIS millions - except he VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to award her part of his fortune as a token gesture of love/goodwill. It should always be HIS decision to make, because it is HIS money. Of course the children would not suffer because there'll be sufficient child-support payments. So why on earth should the woman feel a stewpid sense of entitlement to the man's self-acquired millions - especially when SHE initiated the divorce? I just don't understand these parasites.

Hey, CHAIRCOVER!!!!
I'Ve been looking for your email address. pls hit me @ luckyme9@ymail.com, I have a bunch of questions for you
By the way, I visited ur website; LOVELY!!!
cheers

Sagamite:


How has he branded you a gold-digger?

This is what I hear from a prenup, Lady here's a prenup in case when this thing comes to an end you get nothing.

I mean for f&*k sake why would I even ask for anything. What a nerve, for a man to even think I am in it to get some cash out of it just in case, you know. Are you not worthy of more as a man?


Three questions:

1. Do we marry to remain one or a unit.
2. Whoever makes more is he/she making it for the individual or for the family he/she has been building since the conception of the "lets get married idea"?
3. Why do we marry"? no one has answered. Could somebody please help me out.

BTW, when I am with you I am with you absolutely and trust me when I leave you I'll leave you absolutely.

And how you are going to leave me is soooo up to you.

SA Lady:

This is what I hear from a prenup, Lady here's a prenup in case when this thing comes to an end you get nothing.

I mean for f&*k sake why would I even ask for anything. What a nerve, for a man to even think I am in it to get some cash out of it just in case, you know. Are you not worthy of more as a man?

I am very curious.

Did you read this thread from start at all or you just looked at the title and decided to contribute?

SA Lady:

Three questions:

1. Do we marry to remain one or a unit.

We married because we are attracted to each other, fond of each other's company and want to make it permanently exclusive (hopefully forever, but realistically as long as we can).

Whether we are one, fifteen, twenty five or one hundred and 3 units is all philosophical/religious jackshyt.

SA Lady:

2. Whoever makes more is he/she making it for the individual or for the family he/she has been building since the conception of the "lets get married idea"?

Absolutely fcking thrilled to make money and share it with my wife or even girlfriend, but once they stop being either I want to have a right not to share anymore on reasonable terms and as soon as reasonably possible.

SA Lady:

3. Why do we marry"? no one has answered. Could somebody please help me out.

We marry because:

- It is a cultural/religious expectation that makes most people feel proper and honoured, especially women but also men.
- It entails much nice fanfare. You should taste the jollof rice at a Nigerian wedding, it will blow your mind.
- It has societal respect capital.
- It is encouraged by government and has fiscal benefits.
- It is good for stability of offsprings to have committed parents.
- Show of commitment to each other. Basically sweet (as women will say).

SA Lady:

BTW, when I am with you I am with you absolutely and trust me when I leave you I'll leave you absolutely.

And how you are going to leave me is soooo up to you.

Perfect! As long as you know my money, cash flows and assets is part of me.

Sagamite:


1) Unlike women, most men are not used to be being approached/chased/cherished, so it is quite easy for it to get to their head when extremely beautiful women like jennykandri start fussing over him and telling him that they are all that and are the one. It massages his ego and he is amazed about the calibre of woman that he quickly falls in "luf". Don't forget, [b]biologically, men are built to fall in love with beaut[/b]y. No be dem fault, na biology.

This is maybe the dumbest thing you've ever said!

Ujujoan:

This is maybe the dumbest thing you've ever said!

Your platform to critique it.

Go ahead.

which money una dey even argue about sef?


the 50% will it pass at most 5000 euros.

not even enough for diaper and baby food talkless other things.

make these guys waka pass jo.

let tiger woods do the talking.

Sagamite:

I am very curious.

Did you read this thread from start at all or you just looked at the title and decided to contribute?

C'mon give me a break 9 pages, I couldnt have. I scanned through it and decided to make my contributions based on my personal opinion re the topic.

Sagamite:


We married because we are attracted to each other, fond of each others company and want to make it permanently exclusive (hopefully forever, but realistically as long as we can).

So as much as we are attracted to each other and fond of each others company, the only way for us to make it permanently exclusive (hopefully forever, but realistically as long as we can) was through the contract? way to go!!!!

Lets agree then that the marriage contract has nothing to do with us being fond of each other but assets acquired while we were hoping to be together forever. The contract and us being fond of each other are two separate issues , at least by my standards.  

Sagamite:


Absolutely fcking thrilled to make money and share it with my wife or even girlfriend, but once they stop being either I want to have a right not to share anymore on reasonable terms and as soon as reasonably possible.

Fair deal

Sagamite:


We marry because:

- It is a cultural/religious expectation that makes most people feel proper and honoured, especially women but also men.
- It entails much nice fanfare. You should taste the jollof rice at a Nigerian wedding, it will blow your mind.
- It has societal respect capital.
- It is encouraged by government and has fiscal benefits.
- It is good for stability of offsprings to have committed parents.
- Show of commitment to each other. Basically sweet (as women will say).

If these are the reasons then I'll pass.

I need to find the person who made point one in your list popular and stone him/her to death. As for the rest I have no doubt that I dont need a contract to achieve all that. When I say I want to be with you I mean the list, simple rules of engagement from the onset.

Sagamite:


Perfect! As long as you know my money, cash flows and assets is part of me.

eerrmmm! not so fast make sure there is no third party involved in the end and that she is not the reason for this divorce, cos I'll even drag her to court and its a promise. I am being serious, I'll sue both of you and I still wont file for a divorce. Remember I married absolutely   and am not the one with the roving eye.

But honestly guys, marriage is fast losing its base. There is no need for it anymore, especially if its in the name of love. Love is faaar bigger than marriage and we have managed to reduce it to a mere contract.

In my world I reckon your conscience should speak to you first before any form of contract, but I also want to acknowledge that I may be just another dreamer.

Sagamite:

Your platform to critique it.

Go ahead.

You are by that statement suggesting that . . .

1. Men are by biological make up . . . . flaky!

2. This flakiness ALWAYS overcome their sense of judgment!

3. Love in your opinion is actually LUST!

Ujujoan:

You are by that statement suggesting that  . . .

1. Men are by biological make up . . . .  flaky! 

2. This flakiness ALWAYS overcome their sense of judgment!

3. Love in your opinion is actually LUST!

The variety of traits that attract men to the opposite sex is more limited than that that attracts women.

Men rarely see a lady that can sing like a beautiful canary and start fancying her.

They don't see a woman that is very good at making money and then think she is hot.

They are mainly limited to visuals (and an incremental bit of personality as they get older and the koko-hitting activity is hackneyed), whilst the variety of things that attract women is more expansive and disperse from a younger age.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-405445.0.html

And no, although it starts with lust with men, overtime, it can develop into "love" (whatever that means) after getting to know her. That is why you see a lot of men hit the koko and then after a while decide maybe this should not be long term. On the other hand, they stay with the woman when some feelings and bond develop. For God's sake, men are humans. Human Beings are social animals. Social animals develop bonds.

SA Lady:

C'mon give me a break 9 pages, I couldnt have. I scanned through it and decided to make my contributions based on my personal opinion re the topic.

Ah! Ok.

I never said a woman should leave with nothing.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-630753.128.html#msg7989543
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-630753.160.html#msg7989626

SA Lady:

So as much as we are attracted to each other and fond of each others company, the only way for us to make it permanently exclusive (hopefully forever, but realistically as long as we can) was through the contract? way to go!!!!

Makes me remember how Thierry Henry used Chillis to repudiate responsibility for rules.

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38P1j-quVw4[/flash]

I didn't make the rules, babes.

SA Lady:

Lets agree then that the marriage contract has nothing to do with us being fond of each other but assets acquired while we were hoping to be together forever. The contract and us being fond of each other are two separate issues , at least by my standards.  

Marriage has very limited contribution to what assets I make during the marriage. It is my education, natural talent, networks, dedication and hunger that make me my money. Without marriage, those will still exist almost at 100% levels.

So I will stick with the links I put forward above.

SA Lady:

eerrmmm! not so fast make sure there is no third party involved in the end and that she is not the reason for this divorce, cos I'll even drag her to court and its a promise. I am being serious, I'll sue both of you and I still wont file for a divorce. Remember I married absolutely   and am not the one with the roving eye.

Rubbish!

If I have no feelings for you anymore and I have for someone else, as painful as it might be for any man or woman, no law should punish anyone for their feelings. You should not be able to go to court about forcing people to be with you or like you.

You can't legislate against thought or feelings. That is madness.

tpiah!:

which money una dey even argue about sef?


the 50% will it pass at most 5000 euros.

not even enough for diaper and baby food talkless other things.

make these guys waka pass jo.

let tiger woods do the talking.

It's the early/mid 20th century all over again but this time it's Men Suffrage, buhahaha!!! Perfect bliss.

..

chaircover:


LOL that is what I was saying 2 or 3 pages ago. For many peeps we are only talking about one property and one 2000 model car that is already crying out for a new clutch. 

All I am hearing is "my money" " my money" which money sef? 

Irrespective of many men not being rich, it does not make it any less a senseless law that affect the so-called few.

And it would be quite senseless to say "I can't be bothered because it does not affect me" until the day it affects one.

Furthermore, we wouldn't defend lame laws that tolerates domestical abuse of women all because "not even up to 20% of women face domestic abuse, abeg make we hear word jor".

chaircover:

Look around you . . . .In todays real world, many women are earning as much as and in lots of cases even more than what their husbands are earning.

So,  ejo e ja ka gboran jare. Make we hear word 

Then they should not have a problem with each party leaving with what they came in with, contributed and can earn in the future.

I've got to hand it to Sagamite and his line of reasoning. Deep stuff.

...

^^Are you saying attempts shouldn't be made to address the perceived unfairness in the laws (in this case divorce settlements)?

tpiah!:

which money una dey even argue about sef?


the 50% will it pass at most 5000 euros.

not even enough for diaper and baby food talkless other things.

make these guys waka pass jo.

let tiger woods do the talking.

So that confirms why you are all interested in marrying a wealthy man? So you can run off with a huge fortune in case divorce happens?

chaircover:


LOL that is what I was saying 2 or 3 pages ago. For many peeps we are only talking about one property and one 2000 model car that is already crying out for a new clutch.

All I am hearing is "my money" " my money" which money sef?

Look around you . . . .In todays real world, many women are earning as much as and in lots of cases even more than what their husbands are earning.

So, ejo e ja ka gboran jare. Make we hear word

Your arguements are uncoordinated. What exactly do you stand for? If there are so many women earning more than their husbands, why are you still supporting divorce settlement? Seems like women just can't help eating their cake and stll wanting to have it.

chaircover:


The law in this instance is there to protect vulnerable women who would otherwise be chased out of the house with the clothes on their backs after years of keeping things together and in some cases simply because men have found a younger and nicer looking model (remember that you implied that men have no common sense when it comes to choosing a mate)

The fact that this same law is used and abused by some people doesn't mean that it should be abolished expecially as this same law is protecting and helping many many people who would have otherwise had no other help.

God so good, you men now know that some women are prepared to take you to the cleaners, so to be fore warned is to be forearmed and as harakiri has mentioned that men don't need to get married anyway, so why don't you do everyone a favour and remain happily single with all your money intact under your bed

Is it the same women that earn more than their husbands, according to you, that would be chased out? After putting 'things' together, what things? You say the law is good because it protects such women, protect them from their own greed or what? What I find rather puzzling is that on one hand, you've insinuated that we 'poor' men should just shut up because it's not men like us you hope to get divorce settlemennts from. But if you end up marrying men like us (after unsuccessfully hunting for wealthy men), you would go out and work, and earn more than us (wait a minute, who would then take care of the children, since we both work?). But if God answers your prayers and you land a billionaire like Tiger Woods, you'd gladly give up your career because you know that you'd earn more and enjoy more luxury as his wife than you ever would as a career woman even in three lifetimes. Then you'd stay home in his mansion with plenty house helps and bottomless pit of cash as domestic-expenses to 'put things together' (who send you work?), put what together? And if divorce ever happens, you would then want a huge part of his millions or billions as 'protection'. Protection from what? What happened to the savings you have from the millions at your disposal for shopping etc while you were married to him? Would you have even earned up to what he gave you as shopping allowance during the marriage if you were working as a career woman?
Your arguements are neither here nor there. Only Atreides has made clear sense about all this. The rest of you females are just running from pillar to post out of sheer, typical 'eat your cake and have it' greed.

The divorce settlement laws are a valid way to protect any partner that was the dependant in a marriage.

These laws have now been perverted. I suspect it is not so much the law that has been perverted, but the interpretation by judges, seeing as settlements just seem to keep increasing.

I think it's unreasonable to argue otherwise. Some people have entered the Forbes richest 1000 just from divorce settlements. This is not right.

A number of parents who are trying to give subatantial assets to their children during their lifetime are now looking for ways to protect those assets from future ex wives and husbands. This is not right.

However, where the West needs to tone things down with divorce settlements, Nigeria and other developing countries need to step it up a bit because women are being treated very unfairly in most of these developing countries.

Claus:

A number of parents who are trying to give subatantial assets to their children during their lifetime are now looking for ways to protect those assets from future ex wives and husbands. This is not right.

To clarify my point above, these are parents trying to protect the assets given to their children from the childrens' future ex wives and husbands.

..

This thread might seem like ranting but I think it might help in creating the awareness that some divorce settlements laws are unfair which will in turn lead people to eventually bring about a change in the legislature. Long shot I know but not entirely impossible.

Sagamite:

Ah! Ok.

I never said a woman should leave with nothing.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-630753.128.html#msg7989543
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-630753.160.html#msg7989626

Makes me remember how Thierry Henry used Chillis to repudiate responsibility for rules.

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38P1j-quVw4[/flash]

I didn't make the rules, babes.


Marriage has very limited contribution to what assets I make during the marriage. It is my education, natural talent, networks, dedication and hunger that make me my money. Without marriage, those will still exist almost at 100% levels.

So I will stick with the links I put forward above.

OK we’re on the same page now. Someone may have raised this in the former pages, but all the same let me say it. We must all acknowledge that the divorce process reeks emotions and not much logic.
People forget about how they use to care for each other and become more focused on the anger, the contractual matter and what's in it for them. We can’t run away from that fact. The court is also there to entertain the contract and who feels claim over what, nothing more nothing less.

Soooo, moral of the story, get a f&*kn good lawyer, kapish!

Sagamite:


Rubbish!

If I have no feelings for you anymore and I have for someone else, as painful as it might be for any man or woman, no law should punish anyone for their feelings. You should not be able to go to court about forcing people to be with you or like you.

You can't legislate against thought or feelings. That is madness.

Nothing rubbish about it if you are going to find it normative to put my life and health at risk, not to mention the emotional distress. The law will not purnish anyone for feelings true that, but am sure the law will purnish anyone for reckless decisions, especially when they are under oath and contract.

Nobody is forced to be with me and that is why they have this thing called divorce which you are more than welcome to call for anytime.

Moral of the story, never go against the terms of any contract at random it may cost you severly.

CC,

If the women are earning as more or even more, why are they still insisting on sharing the husbands money

...

The vulnerable women need to divorce settlement, The non-vulnerable dont need it.

Who cares about the men in all of these?

Why cant everyone simply walk away with whatever you have and the equivalent of what you gave up for specific reasons.

If you gave up a 60k ayr job for 3yrs then you have a right to 180k

..

In most cases where the woman didnt give up her job, atimes didnt have a child for the guy, What is she entitled to?

..